Jump to content

Change Formula for Alliance Crown


Recommended Posts

TE took a GREAT leap forward with the creation of prizes that rewarded alliances which built and fought at an elite level. Even though the prizes for Round 31 will only be distributed to the top two in that alliance, by providing those prizes, an alliance member had a much larger shot at an award and thus a greater stake in being great. I feel that I have personally seen the benefits of this from my members both veteran and new. But we all knew that changes would need to be made.

 

When the prizes were created, I imagine that the intent was to find the best alliance and reward the best members. If so, it is time to begin using a less simplistic formula to determine who that really is. 

 

I present the following--as of right now, the following three alliances have the current numbers:

 

Alliance A
180,040 soldiers killed per member
2,791 infra destroyed per member
 
Alliance B
212,864 soldiers killed per member
3,173 infra destroyed per member
 

Alliance C

363,840 soldiers killed per member

4,968 infra destroyed per member 

 
This is over the course of the round. In order to have these numbers, all alliances needed to build very well in order to have frequent high impact wars--something we desperately want to incentivize in TE. Not only that, but those alliances couldn't carry any dead weight--members who were inexperienced in time or fighting/building ability.
 
So who did what? AA A is DEFCON 1, AA B is War Doves, AA C is TPC.
 
To be clear, War Doves is elite and I tip my hat to them for winning. However, a strong argument can be made that a smaller alliance had a much better round from start to finish. We need a formula that doesn't make winning a lock for alliances that have a certain number of members.  

 

Suggestions:

  • Don't allow double prizes--if an alliance wins casualties and infra, expand the prize structure to award the top four rather than the top two. You could alternatively award those who had highest casualties/destroyed infra in the alliance since those people were most instrumental to pushing an alliance over the top. This could raise the level of play even more by creating healthy competition. 
  • Create a New formula--If not strictly averages within an alliance, something that balances the importance of member numbers with member quality.
  • Alliance locks--make it impossible for nations to joining or creating an alliance after a set date. This encourages people to join early, stay longer, and defend their nation fully during wartime. 
  • Prohibit casualty shifting--make it impossible for a nation to transfer their kills to another alliance before the alliance joining deadline. It would still count individually, but not in a new alliance. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the motives outlined here.

 

I think that the prizes should either use a scoring mechanism which uses both average and total figures for casualties/destruction, or separate prizes are created for average and total.

 

I also feel that giving away more than one flag each round devalues the prior novelty of the prize, but that's a lesser point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TE took a GREAT leap forward with the creation of prizes that rewarded alliances which built and fought at an elite level. Even though the prizes for Round 31 will only be distributed to the top two in that alliance, by providing those prizes, an alliance member had a much larger shot at an award and thus a greater stake in being great. I feel that I have personally seen the benefits of this from my members both veteran and new. But we all knew that changes would need to be made.

 

When the prizes were created, I imagine that the intent was to find the best alliance and reward the best members. If so, it is time to begin using a less simplistic formula to determine who that really is. 

 

I present the following--as of right now, the following three alliances have the current numbers:

 

Alliance A
180,040 soldiers killed per member
2,791 infra destroyed per member
 
Alliance B
212,864 soldiers killed per member
3,173 infra destroyed per member
 

Alliance C

363,840 soldiers killed per member

4,968 infra destroyed per member 

 
This is over the course of the round. In order to have these numbers, all alliances needed to build very well in order to have frequent high impact wars--something we desperately want to incentivize in TE. Not only that, but those alliances couldn't carry any dead weight--members who were inexperienced in time or fighting/building ability.
 
So who did what? AA A is DEFCON 1, AA B is War Doves, AA C is TPC.
 
To be clear, War Doves is elite and I tip my hat to them for winning. However, a strong argument can be made that a smaller alliance had a much better round from start to finish. We need a formula that doesn't make winning a lock for alliances that have a certain number of members.  

 

Suggestions:

  • 1) Don't allow double prizes--if an alliance wins casualties and infra, expand the prize structure to award the top four rather than the top two. You could alternatively award those who had highest casualties/destroyed infra in the alliance since those people were most instrumental to pushing an alliance over the top. This could raise the level of play even more by creating healthy competition. 
  • Create a New formula--If not strictly averages within an alliance, something that balances the importance of member numbers with member quality.
  • Alliance locks--make it impossible for nations to joining or creating an alliance after a set date. This encourages people to join early, stay longer, and defend their nation fully during wartime. 
  • Prohibit casualty shifting--make it impossible for a nation to transfer their kills to another alliance before the alliance joining deadline. It would still count individually, but not in a new alliance. 

 

 

1) Yes.

2) Top 20 of each aa would work.  I don't think you want a smaller pool, however this way an aa of 10-15 still has a good shot if they work tight.  Something along this direction would help.

3) See 4.

4) This eliminates the need for 3.  If your casualties/destruction don't go with you, then why not allow leaving/kicking people?

 

Would really like to see more of what was said in 1, where the prizes within the aa reward causing the aa to get the prize --  a destruction aa prize then should go to the destructive nations in that aa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, excellent thoughts, King James. It is suggestions like this which will keep TE alive, constantly evolving, and interesting. Everything I would have said in response has already been pretty much been said by Dealmaster and hart. :((

 

There are far more capable minds then mine when it comes to creating a formula, but would something like this work at all:

 

Avg. Alliance Soldiers Killed * a constant (somewhere between 10 and 20, imo) + Total Alliance Soldiers Killed/ a smaller constant (somewhere between 5 and 10). ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to have an alliance crown, we might as well keep honing in the formula that chooses the best alliance. I think we can tweak until we find the right balance. As we discussed a long long time ago, maybe we can tie this formula into the currently broken alliance score system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a fine suggestion, Puppeteer, but you'll have to tailor the constants according to typical alliance numbers (which are admittedly predictable). Avg + Total/50 is fine.

 

As mentioned in other topics, it can be argued that casualties are not actually a great statistic to use for comparing warring prowess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a fine suggestion, Puppeteer, but you'll have to tailor the constants according to typical alliance numbers (which are admittedly predictable). Avg + Total/50 is fine.

 

As mentioned in other topics, it can be argued that casualties are not actually a great statistic to use for comparing warring prowess.

 

Maybe not casualties as in soldiers lost, but I think soldiers killed has been a good indicator of the strength and efficiency of an alliance. If you look at the alliances and wars they fought this round, the ones that challenged themselves (by hitting high ANS/infra alliances) and done well have produced more damage. You can only do that effectively if you are a strong nation/alliance yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in other topics, it can be argued that casualties are not actually a great statistic to use for comparing warring prowess.

 

It actually is, until you give a solo prize for it.

 

AA casualties on a whole, or avg casualties across an AA are still very good markers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Stevie, defending your success this round :p... typical... jk

 

Personally I don't really follow what the others are specifically saying about casualties, but one reason why I think that they aren't great is that they are dependent on ground attacks alone (and nukes, if defending soldiers are included). Furthermore, if you are ever in a situation with a turtler at zero soldiers, then you're never going to get any attacking casualties against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...